Cabinet considered the Tivoli Contract for Grounds Maintenance.

Councillor Coppinger, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Parks & Countryside & Maidenhead, explained that the council was judged by its residents across a wide range of issues. He was responsible for possibly the two most visible: Waste and recycling and grounds maintenance.  In partnership with SERCO, the borough now had one of the best waste and recycling operations in the country. The contract with Tivoli for grounds maintenance now needed the same level of attention that had been given to SERCO.

Grounds maintenance included a wide range of services:  Grass cut regularly, hedges and shrubs maintained, cemeteries and burials, litter and dog waste bins, parks, open spaces and sports pitches.

Last year the contract was not operating to the standard the council and residents required and both parties issued a Notice of Dispute which highlighted two areas: inaccurate bills of quantity and a failure to follow the variation process.

Quite rightly, Overview and Scrutiny had asked that Tivoli attend a meeting to explain themselves and state what action they would take. One of the key issues for Tivoli was cost escalation, together with shortages of labour and equipment shortages. This did not apply solely to them but to all companies operating in the sector. The meeting was constructive but with a lot to do by both parties.

At this stage the council had two choices: end the contract and go out to tender, or work with the supplier to find a solution. The council decided to do the latter as it would give the lowest risk and avoid a very steep rise in fees. Officers had worked very closely with Tivoli over the last 12 months and explored a range of options both on improving the service and other ways of achieving the desired result. Service had improved and was now at or above the target, and there have been no formal complaints as at the end of July. Councillor Coppinger accepted that there were still issues but given the weather conditions earlier in the year this was not surprising. He highlighted the amazing work that had been done by Tivoli and council officers to ensure Windsor looked pristine during the recent events surrounding the state funeral.

Officers now accepted that in order to meet the original contract specification would cost an additional £200,000 per annum. However, to offset this there were a number of initiatives that had been identified and that officers were following up, including:

·       Options for the provision of pets corner on Ray Mill Island. Councillor Coppinger was not saying it would close but there were many ideas that would raise income.

·       A number of functions were duplicated with other contracts, could they be combined

·       A revision of the KPIs to better match the requirements and with new indicators around a number of areas

·       A joint project on mapping highway verges to ensure that all had the appropriate maintenance regimes. This would also give the opportunity to consider biodiversity improvements and where areas could be managed differently

Officers were aiming to agree the new performance indicators by the end of October, and these would apply retrospectively to cover the financial year. Details of the negotiation were available to Members in Part II.

Councillor Johnson seconded the proposal.

Councillor Stimson commented that there was some sensitivity around the animals, but she felt it was no longer sensible to keep animals in cages at Ray Mill Island.

Ed Wilson addressed Cabinet. He explained that he had raised the issue of cemeteries before. The borough was giving Tivoli another £200,000 for failing in cemeteries, grass verges and in open spaces. He had also previously raised that the ‘Report It’ function did not include cemeteries. Ed Wilson acknowledged there had been some improvement in the service but commented the 40-degree heat had given time for other work to take place. Lots of residents were bemused and confused that Tivoli was being put before residents. Ed Wilson did not think the council was set up for community engagement in this area. He suggested there was a big opportunity for engagement with charities and suggested Edinburgh as an example.

Councillor Coppinger commented that another proposed change was to consider whether residents could take responsibility for gate opening and closing. The proposals for a new open space at Deerswood included working with residents to give guidance on what they wanted. He would be happy to follow up on the charity idea.

Councillor Rayner commented that open green space was very valued by residents. She felt it was a good idea to consider charities and other groups; the format had worked well in Eton Wick.

Councillor Hilton commented that in his area the parish council managed all the parks, recreation grounds and cemeteries and there were none of the sorts of issues experienced in other areas. This was because parish councillors were on the ground and talked to residents about the standards required. Where footways were narrow and verges overgrown, residents wanted to be able to clear them themselves but had been told by the borough this was not possible on safety grounds.

The Head of Neighbourhood Services responded that she would need to look into the specific details of the case, but highlighted that public safety had to be paramount. Organisations would need public liability insurance.

Councillor Stimson commented that she had received requests from residents to be able to look after local cemeteries in non-parished areas. She took on board of the useful idea of charity engagement.

Councillor Price commented that sadly there was no parish or town council in Windsor to undertake the work suggested by Councillor Hilton. Without that level of infrastructure she did her best and worked with other willing residents, but there was a limit to how much could be done. She encouraged the idea to be referred to the Place Overview and Scrutiny Panel.

Councillor Baldwin commented there was enormous potential for community engagement. A proper ‘Adopt a Park’ policy was needed. He understood that financial constraints meant the council was increasingly looking to the voluntary sector; there was nothing wrong with that, but it could be done better. People were willing to help but they needed tactical support and supplies.

Councillor Sharpe commented that requirements in individual areas needed to be considered. There had been issues with the contract, but he was confident it would come to a successful conclusion. There was space to pass responsibilities to other bodies.

Councillor Coppinger thanked all participants for their helpful suggestions. He had spent time with a Windsor councillor and could see the good work going on. He believed all parishes looked after their land and open space well. He agreed that community engagement should be encouraged and supported.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Cabinetnotes the report and associated information and:

i)           Notes the necessary contractual uplift of £200,000

ii)          Supports officer’s ongoing investigation and dialogue with Tivoli to mitigate additional contract costs

iii)        Supports further exploration of initiatives outlined in Table 4 and delegates the decision for alternative solutions to the Head of Neighbourhood Services in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Parks & Countryside & Maidenhead in consultation with Ward Members where appropriate

iv)        Notes the initiatives in Table 3 to be explored with a different service delivery model.